I believe a portion of the Toronto Sun article whose link no longer works is contained herein:

______________________________________________

In what could be yet another scandal that could have major implications given the current concern over which party is best able to deal with gun violence, the RCMP has been asked to initiate yet another investigation into the Liberal Party (via Bourque):

The RCMP has been asked to probe a Liberal consultant over a $380,000 contract she was awarded to lobby Ottawa for funds for the ailing firearms registry.

The five-month contract was awarded by the justice department to Kim Doran in March 2003 to lobby the federal solicitor general, Treasury Board and Privy Council, according to a detailed lobbyist report.

At the time, Doran was representing the Coalition for Gun Control. The group, which receives both government and private funding, claims to represent anti-gun groups and municipalities. It is a strong supporter of the gun registry.

“The whole thing smells of corruption and cronyism,” said Tony Bernardo, of the Canadian Shooting Sports Association.

The group yesterday asked the RCMP to probe the matter.

The entry in the lobbyist’s database clearly shows $380,600 going to Kim Doran of the Capital Hill Group from the Department of Justice to help pay for her services to lobby on behalf of her client, the Coalition for Gun Control.

I guess the Coalition for Gun Control got a freebie. A professional lobbyist, paid for by the government in order to tell the government what it wanted to hear.

Of course, they would listen to Kim Doran. Why? Well, she’s the Deputy National Director (Organization and Policy) of the federal Liberal Party, as reported by the Toronto Sun.

Conservative MP Garry Breitkreuz has been working the gun control file for a long time now. From Breitkreuz we get this spreadsheet showing contracts and expenses paid to the Coalition for Gun Control.

In August of 2002, the Coalition was paid by the government $380,600 to “develop strategies for implementation of the firearms law”.

That’s the same amount that went to Kim Doran in March of 2003 of that year to pay for lobbying services according to the Toronto Sun report.

What could this mean?

Here’s what it looks like to me. The government cuts a cheque to the Coalition for Gun Control for $380,600 for a three-year contract to develop strategies to implement the gun control law.

But in March 2003, senior Liberal Kim Doran becomes a lobbyist, and on paper is paid $380,600 for her services, as per the Toronto Sun report.

Money flows from the Justice Deparment to the Coalition for Gun Control, then from the Coalition for Gun Control to Liberal executive and professional lobbyist Kim Doran, then from Kim Doran to her firm Capital Hill Group, then…where?

Well, if that money flowed through Kim Doran to the Capital Hill Group in 1993, it is interesting to note that between 1993 to 2003, the Capital Hill Group pumped over $136,000 into Liberal Party coffers.

Or are we dealing with some strange kind of coincidence here? Maybe we’re misinterpreting one of the payments. Maybe we’ve misread the lobbyist report in some way, and “Government Funding” refers to the client and not to the lobbyist (but then the next lines “Contigency Fee” and “Communication Technique(s)” clearly refer to the lobbyist and not the client).

I would like to see what the Coalition for Gun Control delivered after three years and $380,600.

____________________________________________

Update: I was looking for the entry of “101 People that are screwing up Canada”. It wasn’t available. I did however track what I believe is a copy of thet entry

“The following was written by an individual with no interest in firearms

The Ryerson University Professor is the President and co-founder of the Coalition for Gun Control and on the Board of the International Action Network on Small Arms.

Her involvement in gun control certainly appeared to have started with good intentions. Following Marc Lepine’s shooting rampage in 1989 at École Polytechnique in Montreal, Cukier became a crusader against guns.

Her efforts however have resulted in little tangible except a massive costs to taxpayers for the Firearms Registry, money which arguably could have been used to actually catch criminals.

Last year when Sharon Gregson, a British Columbia mother of four and school board trustee who also happens to have a handgun permit in the state of Utah spoke publicly that she thought Canadians should reconsider their stand on handgun ownership, Cukier went…well nuts.

Gregson mused on a radio program that she thought it should be easier to carry a concealed gun, especially for women who feel threatened. She suggested that the outcome for Lepine’s victims might have been different if one of them had been packing heat.

Not sure if I agree but an interesting point and worthy of debate unless of course you’re Wendy Cukier.

Opposing point of views don’t get debated with Ms. Cukier, they get trashed. “It’s an absurd comment,” said Cukier about Gregson. “It’s completely contrary to Canadian traditions. It has no basis in fact, and for someone who is associated with schools to be making those comments is particularly alarming, especially a woman.”

Especially a woman? Okay coming up at 101 we’re going to get into this odd groupthink that to be a woman you have to think a certain way or you’re betraying your gender but that’s for another day.

The bottom line is that there are lots of facts Ms. Cukier conveniently dismisses such as…

…the use of so called longarm guns in crimes began dropping BEFORE the registry came into effect. Today, handguns account for 2/3 of firearm homicides, up from ½ in the 90’s and 1/3 before that.

…of all the handguns used to commit homicide that were recovered by police since 1997, 72 per cent were not registered.

…gang related homicides are twice as likely to involve firearms as those not involving gangs. Rest assured, the gang members aren’t registering their weapons of choice.

Then there’s the Auditor General’s report.

The report questioned the effectiveness of the gun registry, and if it even improves public safety. The report said, “The Centre does not show how these activities help minimize risks to public safety with evidence-based outcomes such as reduced deaths, injuries and threats from firearms.”

The report also showed that 86% of firearms used in homicides are unregistered and 80% of the murderers were unlicenced firearm owners making the gun registry well virtually useless.

If criminals would obey the law, then perhaps Cukier’s strategies would work but well, they don’t, that’s why they’re criminals.

Ms. Cukier is pushing a certain agenda and that’s fine, she is entitled to her opinion. However for Cukier there is no other opinion on this issue worth hearing…and there are facts Canadians should be aware of and which should be presented in a fair, open debate without being called “contrary to Canadian traditions” (whatever that means), “absurd” or that a woman shouldn’t say it.

There’s compelling evidence to the old adage that when you outlaw guns only the outlaws have guns. After Britain outlawed handguns in 1997, the criminal use of handguns shot up 40% in 3 years and has continued to climb ever since. Don’t bother telling Wendy Cukier that though, because well…it’s apparently not Canadian to do so.

From the web sight ………101 people who are screwing up Canada

________________________________________________

The Committee for Bill C-391 is due very shortly to hear from witnesses. MP Mark Holland has stacked the deck with witnesses for keeping the registry and I have not seen the witness list yet. It would not surprise me if Ms. Cukier, people that have a similar interest or have been influenced by her appear to speak.